[11491] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [nsp] known networks for broadcast ping attacks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Systems Engineer)
Wed Jul 30 18:06:41 1997
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 17:38:29 -0400
From: Systems Engineer <snash@lightning.net>
To: root@gannett.com
CC: Netstat Webmaster <feh@netstat.net>, "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net>,
nanog@merit.edu
Well ever since this but was introduced to the outside world, I have
since modified my present Firewall (ipfwadm v2.3.0) to accomodate.
type prot source destination ports
deny icmp 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any
deny icmp 0.0.0.255 0.0.0.0 any
Depending on the nature of the attack, that will handle it. I have
tested it and It has worked on my local machine.
But the best thing to do is if you find no need for a broadcast ICMP
message, simply filter it at the router.
root@gannett.com wrote:
> > The real problem I see with this particular attack is that there is
> > nothing short of blocking all ICMPs that 'victim.com' can do. At
> least
> > not that I am aware of.
>
> Well, I've been filtering ICMP for quite a while at my border routers,
>
> and other than the occasional braindead sendmail configuration, and
> the fact that Solaris ping can't handle the "Administratively
> prohibited"
> return from the IOS filter rule, I've yet to see a major downside.
>
> We have a very large quantity of people hitting our network every day.
>
> Is there a specific reason that you can see to allow ICMP inbound to
> a 'victim.com'? Or at least to more than a handful of specific
> addresses? Perhaps there's a better solution with some sort of ICMP
> "proxy" at or just behind the router?
>
> Paul
> ----
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Robertson
> gatekeeper@gannett.com
--
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Steven Nash ph: (516)248-8400ext25
Systems Engineer / Network Security fax: (516)248-8897
Lightning Internet Services LLC email: snash@lightning.net
http://www.lightning.net
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
